Kuhn vs Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science Book × The Struggle for the Soul of Science ✓ Steve fuller

Kindle Kuhn vs. Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science

Kuhn vs. Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science Book × The Struggle for the Soul of Science ✓ Steve fuller ✓ قُيض لتصور توماس كون في تحول الباراديمات ذلك الذي يكاد يجمع المختصون على أنقُيض لتصور توماس كون في تحول الباراديمات ذلك الذي يكاد يجمع المختصون على أنه يشكل حد فلسلفة العلم الحديثة الفاصل والذي يقر أن العلم مجرد نشاط بشري آخر مثله مثل الفن والفلسفة وإن كان أكثر تخصصية أن يحقق الإنتصار على مذهب كارل بوبر الأكثر وضعية ف I picked this up to read along with Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions because it seemed to present an argument against Kuhn and in the defense of another philosopher of science Karl Popper After reading about Kuhn's paradigms I wanted another viewpoint about his ideasThis book was exactly that The author clearly sympathizes with Popper whose ideas were apparently not as widespread or accepted as Kuhn's were The ideas against Kuhn were interesting and plausible most of the time however I think the book would have been better for me had I been familiar with PopperFor information on Kuhn's ideas see my review of The structure of Scientific Revolutions Popper as opposed to Kuhn is famous for delineating the idea of Falsificationism in science That is science can't really prove that things are only that they aren't something else The author uses this fact to liken Popper to democracy continually finding fault with itself in a constructive and progressive way whereas later in the book Kuhn gets analogized to the Nazis Nazis?? Yeah He went there The author claims that Kuhn takes a winner takes it all attitude and implies that that is somehow less democratic fair and right Additionally he claims that Kuhn encourages scientists not to think outside the box and to only stay within the current paradigmThe problem though is that I'm not sure that Kuhn really wanted everyone to take his ideas and live within them That is I'm sure he believed that his paradigms and revolutions were what actually happened and will continue to happen throughout history but I don't know if he wanted everyone to be aware of this and change their own philosophies accordingly His book seemed like a history of what inevitably happens not a plea for everyone to change how they think I'm not sure I'm not an expert on Kuhn or Popper Still the author's arguments against Kuhn's popularity were interesting even if they did often sound like they came from a school yard Mom Kuhn's creating paradigms again

Steve Fuller ✓ The Struggle for the Soul of Science Mobi

ي قدرة العلم الثورية على دحض عقائد المجتمع ولكن هل كان هذا النصر مفيدا للعلم ؟ يجادل ستيف فولر في هذا الكتاب بأن هيمنة تصور توماس كون قد أدت إلى نتائج سلبية في مجال فلسفة العلم وبأن كون وبوبر قد تعرضا خلال ذلك إلى إساءة فهم متطرفة يثير هذا الجدل ? How can a mere philosopher devise criteria distinguishing between good and bad science knowing it is an inutterable mystic secret of the Royal Society? Imre Lakatos 1973I don't know much about Thomas Kuhn or Karl Popper What I was expecting from this book was a brief and accessible introduction to debates about the scientific method using the tension between the two as a hook What it actually turns out to be is a bit of a hatchet job on Thomas Kuhn Probably the book is best read by someone with a basic grounding in the subject already something I don't have but it was still clear enough to be worth readingThis is a bit of a summary than a review as suchRoughly speaking Popper and Kuhn's approaches are as follows For Popper to decide between rival theories scientists must set a test Each theory makes a claim and whichever is falsified fails the test should be discarded regardless of its longevity or authority If your claim is unfalsifiable it's not scientific Popper's vision is one of constant challenge for scientific theories and regular failure in which scientists themselves have to be protected from the conseuences of being wrongFor Kuhn scientists work within paradigms Normal science is an incremental advance It increases the power of a paradigm but also brings up problems When the collection of problems gets too great a successful new paradigm emerges and a scientific revolution occurs Most famous scientists engaged in revolutionary science rather than boring normal scienceThe concept of paradigms is key to Kuhn's work and he has been criticised for not having a clear definition Different paradigms are incommensurable which may be an even problematic term What I think it means is that there is such a gap between them that it is impossible to translate a claim made by one theory into terms that can be made to verify the other So there can be no independent testThis leads to a fracture in the scientific community which remains until the supporters of the losing theory die off At this point the winning scientists rewrite history to make it look like science was always heading their way There's certainly a good criticism of the Whig interpretation of history hereHowever Fuller argues there are a number of negative effects of Kuhn's view of science One is to break science into a multiplicity of specialised paradigms which are protected from criticism from inside and out This served the Cold War military industrial complex It persuaded scientists to work on incremental improvements rather than to think freelyKuhn's position relegated philosophers to underlabourers working at fringe problems to support scientists It was explicitly uncritical both epistemologically and normatively Popper was critical of science on both counts I think this lack of critical faculties affects 'serious' science the dubious claims of evolutionary psychology the maths of advanced physics far from experimental verification and the popularity of pseudo scienceOddly I came out feeling I had a much better understanding of Kuhn's philosophy than Popper's although I did come out wanting to find out about Popper Another disappointment was that some of the most important parts were also the least clearIf you want a carefully balanced broad introduction to this subject Kuhn vs Popper is not the place to go Still it's not a bad read despite that

Pdf á Popper The Struggle for the Soul of Science ✓ Steve Fuller

Kuhn vs Popper The Struggle for the Soul of Science?سئلة حيوية هل بمقدور العلم أن يظل قوة مستقلة تقدمية في المجتمع أم أن مآله أن يظل الجناح التقني للمركب العسكري الصناعي بالركون إلى نصوص أصلية يؤمِن فولر تصورا واضحا لخبايا الصراع بين كون وبوبر ولأهمية هذا الصراع بالنسبة إلى مستقبل البحث العلمي I picked this book up in the hopes that I would get some kind of synopsis of both of these philosopher's views Fuller summed them up like this Kuhn paradigms; Popper falsification While I don't doubt that this is true I was hoping for a bit than that Instead of summation of the views of the philosophers' views Fuller is concerned with the implications of their views He dives into how their views have interacted over time The philosophical and religious influences to each of their views is covered which I found to be a very interesting part of the book I was continually surprised about how much religion Fuller injects into the conversationIn any case even though the book wasn't what I thought it was going to be I feel as though I understand the philosophers better than when I started I would recommend reading the philosophers' main works first or at least a good review of them before picking this book up A uick note on Fuller he sometimes gets lost in examples or illustration that uickly get confusing